(08-18-2023 10:34 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 07:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 06:07 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 12:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 12:41 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:   Never did get an answer.

Eastman turned over this memo as part of the J6 committee subpoena and subsequent to the litigation in the Federal courts in California on whether it was privileged or not.

He has been confronted in subsequent litigation on that very same memo, and acknowledged in court filings that it is his work, and was the same memo that he sent to Trump, and they discussed in several group meetings in late November through December of 2020. Again, all in the court proceedings on whether to bust Eastman's attorney client privilege -- where that same memo was cited by the sitting judge, and the later 9th Cir. appeal, as being evidence of a greater probability that the Trump and Eastman were acting within the crime/fraud exception with this, and thus not subject to the attorney client privilege.

Next fing wackadoodle 'its all a fake' garbage point.... seems to be the rage around here. Along with doing no background work in the slightest.

First off Eastman had memos not one memo. What you are looking at is someones summary of their take of what they saw in those memos, so take that for what it's worth. I asked you if you had ever seen the original memos, you never replied so I will take that as a no.

Given it is an electronic document at its onset, it is kind of hard to detail an original.

And, this is what was the crux of the litigation in the Cal. Fed. Dist., admitted by Eastman to be his work, and turned over by Eastman as his work.

If you want to dance on the word 'original', feel free. Kind of stupid, but hey, its a free country.

Quote: So lets just say that some or part or all of what was in those memos are true. Where is the crime of people sitting in an office and snowballing on what they can do about a stolen election.

The crimes of 'conspiracy to' and 'attempt to'. That is the items that are charged for the most part in the Jack Smith and Fulton Co indictments.

One need not complete the crime, nor is success of the crime an out, to get dinged on those aspects.

In short, if I have a written plan to knock over my local bank, there is no problem.

If I spitball over drinks with the buds, no problem.

The instant anyone takes any action on that plan -- big problems for everyone.


There is a reason why Barr and Cippollone told Trump that if he persisted in the actions outlined in the plan, he would face criminal issues for a long time.

And on top of it, it is really fing stupid to write a plan down that is questionable legally. And really fing stupid to make any action on it when the lawyer author admits that it wont pass muster.

Stupid games, stupid prizes.

Quote:These ideas are written down on pieces of paper. Pence did not carry out any of these ideas on the 6th of January. So where is the crime.

See above.

Quote: You or anyone else will never convince me that the 2020 election was not stolen so you can save you breath.

I dont think I have ever attempted to do that. Some people also believe that Woody Harrelson's father was a hitman in the JFK assassination. Whatever blows your hair back.

Quote: Eastman is not in federal court in California. He's in the State Bar Court of California.

First, the issue I talk of above was a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena in Cali. In Federal Court there.

Second, I dont have clue what you are saying in your second sentence. It is kind of gibberish, with respect. Are you trying to convey where he is licensed? That is simply the state bar. I dont know what a state bar court is. There isnt such a thing.

He is facing disbarment. I dont know what forum that is in, and that is not what I am referring to above.

Quote: I have a question for you. Do you believe Biden received 81 million legal votes?
It's a yes or no question.

I dont think Biden received exactly 81 legal million votes. So no.

There is zero evidence that underlies any change to the various state totals. I dont know what the total in the 51 electoral races amounts to. If you have proof or hard evidence of other totals, please do tell.

Thanks for the reply, get back at you this weekend.

So you have never heard of the California State Bar Court? I thought you knew everything but I guess you don't. You said there was no such thing. Well here's a Link for you and you can look up his Case. https://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/
That's where he is right now.

I see where you you don't care for original documents, you said "it is kind of hard to detail an original." He had 6 memos, how hard is it to scan 6 memos and put them in a PDF file, not hard at all. But you would rather take the word of someone that reads these memos and puts those words as a summary on to a PDF file. No sir I want to look at the originals for what it's worth.

The rest of your babble on most of this conversation is at best Fantasy Land.

Have a nice Evening Tanq.

(08-20-2023 07:24 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 10:34 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 07:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 06:07 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 12:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Eastman turned over this memo as part of the J6 committee subpoena and subsequent to the litigation in the Federal courts in California on whether it was privileged or not.

He has been confronted in subsequent litigation on that very same memo, and acknowledged in court filings that it is his work, and was the same memo that he sent to Trump, and they discussed in several group meetings in late November through December of 2020. Again, all in the court proceedings on whether to bust Eastman's attorney client privilege -- where that same memo was cited by the sitting judge, and the later 9th Cir. appeal, as being evidence of a greater probability that the Trump and Eastman were acting within the crime/fraud exception with this, and thus not subject to the attorney client privilege.

Next fing wackadoodle 'its all a fake' garbage point.... seems to be the rage around here. Along with doing no background work in the slightest.

First off Eastman had memos not one memo. What you are looking at is someones summary of their take of what they saw in those memos, so take that for what it's worth. I asked you if you had ever seen the original memos, you never replied so I will take that as a no.

Given it is an electronic document at its onset, it is kind of hard to detail an original.

And, this is what was the crux of the litigation in the Cal. Fed. Dist., admitted by Eastman to be his work, and turned over by Eastman as his work.

If you want to dance on the word 'original', feel free. Kind of stupid, but hey, its a free country.

Quote: So lets just say that some or part or all of what was in those memos are true. Where is the crime of people sitting in an office and snowballing on what they can do about a stolen election.

The crimes of 'conspiracy to' and 'attempt to'. That is the items that are charged for the most part in the Jack Smith and Fulton Co indictments.

One need not complete the crime, nor is success of the crime an out, to get dinged on those aspects.

In short, if I have a written plan to knock over my local bank, there is no problem.

If I spitball over drinks with the buds, no problem.

The instant anyone takes any action on that plan -- big problems for everyone.


There is a reason why Barr and Cippollone told Trump that if he persisted in the actions outlined in the plan, he would face criminal issues for a long time.

And on top of it, it is really fing stupid to write a plan down that is questionable legally. And really fing stupid to make any action on it when the lawyer author admits that it wont pass muster.

Stupid games, stupid prizes.

Quote:These ideas are written down on pieces of paper. Pence did not carry out any of these ideas on the 6th of January. So where is the crime.

See above.

Quote: You or anyone else will never convince me that the 2020 election was not stolen so you can save you breath.

I dont think I have ever attempted to do that. Some people also believe that Woody Harrelson's father was a hitman in the JFK assassination. Whatever blows your hair back.

Quote: Eastman is not in federal court in California. He's in the State Bar Court of California.

First, the issue I talk of above was a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena in Cali. In Federal Court there.

Second, I dont have clue what you are saying in your second sentence. It is kind of gibberish, with respect. Are you trying to convey where he is licensed? That is simply the state bar. I dont know what a state bar court is. There isnt such a thing.

He is facing disbarment. I dont know what forum that is in, and that is not what I am referring to above.

Quote: I have a question for you. Do you believe Biden received 81 million legal votes?
It's a yes or no question.

I dont think Biden received exactly 81 legal million votes. So no.

There is zero evidence that underlies any change to the various state totals. I dont know what the total in the 51 electoral races amounts to. If you have proof or hard evidence of other totals, please do tell.

Thanks for the reply, get back at you this weekend.

So you have never heard of the California State Bar Court? I thought you knew everything but I guess you don't. You said there was no such thing. Well here's a Link for you and you can look up his Case. https://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/

That's where he is right now.

Cool beans. Glad to know it exists. I didn’t have a clue.

I saw on the site that "California is the only state with an independent professional Court dedicated to ruling on attorney discipline cases." Sorry that I dont know the process for Cali attorney discipline matters. Never had the necessity of knowing. Better file that away if/when that becomes important in my life.

Quote: I see where you you don't care for original documents, you said "it is kind of hard to detail an original." He had 6 memos, how hard is it to scan 6 memos and put them in a PDF file, not hard at all.

Memos don’t have a requirement of an original. They exist typically in electronic form.

Quote: But you would rather take the word of someone that reads these memos and puts those words as a summary on to a PDF file. No sir I want to look at the originals for what it's worth.

I take the word of the Dist Ct in Cali handling the the matter, and Eastman himself who turned it over and admitted it was his work.

Amazing that.

Quote: The rest of your babble on most of this conversation is at best Fantasy Land.

Well, I’ll take that as the comment of a dude who thinks memos are ‘originals’ in the 21st century legal practice.

Heh, fixating on an ‘original’ of a memo, and on top of it not bothering to look at that document’s actual legal provenance that is in the record.

[quote
Have a nice Evening Tanq.
[/quote]

You too. Can’t wait for more babble from you.

I got a good idea - lets wait and see what the Judge(s) in the case have to say about this.

I have no doubt that Tanq has some knowledge about this (assuming he is an attorney as he states). But how many attorney's argue from a position they think is right and end up losing their argument? Answer: A lot of them

I read the first page of this thread and stopped, then opened this page and I am not going to bother with everything in the middle because I guarantee the rest is many on the board saying no you can't and Tanq saying Yes you can with a smattering of TJP throwing in an Yeah what Tanq said....


What a waste of space this thread is - and I am now guilty of adding to it.

back to the thread --

Meadows filed his motion to dismiss in Fed Ct even before the court has decided whether the transfer to Fed Court has been sustained.

In honesty, Meadows has a chance here.

The Ga. indictment hits him with two counts -- a count of RICO and a count stemming from the infamous Raffensberger telephone call.

In that call, Meadows only really introduces the issues of the call at the beginning. And the only other time he spoke he basically arranged for the Ga SoS attorneys to coordinate with the campaign voting people and Trump campaign attorneys about the fundamental issues between them. And he says obliquely 'I hope this can resolve the issues.'

I am not on board with that conduct being charged. I do think that his actions in that call (very limited) could fit into the definition of the color of law for a Chief of Staff.

So I could see where a Fed judge could agree that Meadows a) acted in the scope of his Federal office; and b) has a Federal defense -- which would lead to his case being brought into Federal court. And, if a) is found for the transfer, that *is* the defense in total under the Supremacy clause -- that count I can see being dismissed.

His other charge is RICO -- and if the 1st count disappears there is no predicate act to fit him into the RICO charge. In that case that charge goes away.

I can see a path out of this for Meadows. I dont necessarily see his conduct as being chargeable under the Sup Clause issue, and for what the DA has brought against him.